In an ongoing issue complemented by scientists have

In the article, Taking on Creationism by Mark Greener,  an award-winning medical and bioscience writer, and journalist, exclaims evidence for his conventional theory of evolution. He begins with a notation from a geneticist and biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky, “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” However, others may construct their argument towards creationism coming in as the big picture. Creationism is the markable theory on how everything in the light of this earth was all deposited by a creator. Mark Greener has taken up his main points to conclude his side of Evolution. Greener comes off with a more direct strike to creationism, he describes creationism as “an attack on science” on multiple fields including geology, astronomy, and materialism. He attempts to clarify his perspective by informing the audience about how an ongoing issue complemented by scientists have made to keep creationism out of school curricula and include the evolutionary theory. I, therefore, agree on this aspect on the facts of evolution existing.”Humans have always wondered about the meaning of life…life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA…life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference”. (qtd by Richard Dawkins) For that matter, how else could you explain having all these things we then observe in nature and conclude that the world is 6,000 years old. That is where evolution accompanies this particular statement of fact. Although Greener finds a twerp in this scientific system, he then invests how scientist are found in quite a dilemma to this point, “the danger is that if scientists engage the proponents of creationism and intelligent design in direct debate, they risk giving further credence to anti-evolutionary arguments by inferring that the ideas are worthy of discussion. Conversely, a failure to engage in debate could allow creationists to argue that biologists cannot, rather than will not, counter their arguments.” There is an encounter with many spectrums of these certain beliefs that contradict the minds and actions of many scientists that have come to the question of whether they are in the ethical form of their theories. For instance, as for the debate for creationism: “the English theologist William Paley (1743–1805) formulated the most famous example: if one found a watch, the order, complexity, and purpose would argue for a watchmaker. Similarly, because the universe shows order, complexity and purpose, there must be a creator.” This carries on into challenging the refuting views for evolutionary theory. A more complex strategy is to allow scientific evidence in order highlight and support the claim of evolution. “In any case, the fossil record contains numerous transitional forms that allow the reconstruction of, for example, the development of the modern whale (Balaena spp.) from the hippo-like Diacodexis spp., which existed some 50 million years ago. Missing links emerge regularly and it is quite likely that paleontologists have simply not discovered them all yet.” (qtd by Conway Morris) Also, with that being said some biologists find that evolutionary convergence presents a powerful argument against intelligent design and illuminates the effectiveness of natural selection. In addition, Charles Darwin’s (an English biologist and geologist whose work is known for his contributions in science of evolution) “brilliance was in seeing beyond the appearance of design, and understanding the purposeless, merciless process of natural selection, of life and death in the wild, and how it culled all but the most successful organisms from the tree of life, thereby creating the illusion that a master intellect had designed the world. But close inspection of the watch like “perfection” of honey bees’ combs or ant trails…reveals that they are a product of random, repetitive, unconscious behaviors, not conscious design.” Although from the q-points following both sides of evolutionist and creationist, creationist conclude the fault in the evolutionist’s theory of comparative anatomy was the “discovery that structures that appear homologous often develop under the control of genes that are not homologous. If the structures evolved from the same source, you would expect the same genes to make the same structures” (Ham 291). Placing this into consideration may include flaws in the evolutionary system due to their position on the belief they withstand to hold accountable. With that being said, Greener also failed to at a point towards his test of logic by admitting that there are missing links in the chain of fossil records used as evolutionary evidence, “paleontologists have simply not discovered them yet.” In this case, an argument could be used against him in the embodiment of God’s existence. In conclusion, Greener closes his article by answering his own question of how evolutionists should convince creationists of evolution. He advises for biologists to present good arguments for evolution, “they still need to reach out to the general public and explain those arguments and engage in a dialogue.” “Part of the answer is to introduce more evolutionary biology into early school curricula,” Coates commented. “Children need to grow up with the fact of evolution, and the awareness that it underpins biology. Teachers should be encouraged to be bold enough to talk about this early and often, from infants onwards.”